CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 4 March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 62222/14 Giuseppe DIMO and Others against Italy and 11 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 16 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the applicants for the expropriation or “voluntary transfer” ( cessione volontaria ) of their land in favour of local authorities. Under Italian law, when a compulsory purchase order is issued, the owner has the choice to avoid an expropriation procedure by way of voluntarily agreeing to the transfer, while only retaining the possibility to challenge before the courts the sums offered as compensation. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complain about the domestic courts’ failure to adjust the compensation for inflation, which in their view rendered the compensation for the dispossession of their property inadequate. The applicants in application nos. 62222/14 and 4458/17 also submit that they have yet to receive the payment of the compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to property contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, were the applicants made to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden on account of the failure to adjust the compensation awarded to them for inflation (see Chinnici v. Italy (no.   2) , no.   22432/03, §§ 44-46, 62-63, 14 April 2015)?   In replying to the foregoing questions, the parties are invited to specify: (i)     the market value of the land as established by the final domestic decision; (ii)     the years elapsed from the date of the transfer of property, due to the voluntary transfer or the expropriation decree, and the final domestic decision establishing the amount of compensation due to the applicants, as well as the reasons for any delays in the proceedings (see Aka v. Turkey , 23   September 1998, §§ 49-50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Akkuş v.   Turkey , 9 July 1997, § 21, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV); (iii)     the date of payment of the compensation; (iv)     the rate of inflation recorded for each year from the transfer of property to the final domestic decision establishing the amount of compensation ( Chinnici v. Italy (no. 2) , cited above, § 45) as well as the rate of statutory interest in force each following year based on Article 1284 Civil Code (vesting in the Minister of Justice the power to update the interest rate “taking into account the rate of inflation recorded during the year”); (v)     the sums obtained by the applicants as regards statutory interest in relation to the same period; (vi)     the sums corresponding to inflation adjustment in relation to the same period; (vii)     whether the applicants obtained any other sums, including in form different from statutory interest and/or inflation adjustment, to compensate them for the passage of time.   The parties are also invited to specify whether the applicants in applications nos. 62222/14 and 4458/17 have received payment of compensation and, in the affirmative, to provide evidence thereof.   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on       Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Invoked Articles 1. 62222/14 Dimo and Others v. Italy 08/09/2014 Giuseppe DIMO 1959 Lecce Italian Valeria DIMO 1983 Gallipoli (LE) Italian Maria SARCINELLA 1970 Gallipoli (LE) Italian   Iolanda DE FRANCESCO Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 2. 7719/15 Trapani Lombardo and Others v. Italy 05/02/2015 Antonio TRAPANI LOMBARDO 1949 Rome Italian Luigi DONATO 1955 Soriano del Cimino (VT) Italian Antonio TRAPANI LOMBARDO 1952 Reggio Calabria Italian Maria Concetta TRAPANI LOMBARDO 1953 Rome Italian Maria Concetta TRAPANI LOMBARDO 1954 Perugia Italian Vincenzo TRAPANI LOMBARDO 1950 Reggio Calabria Italian Nicolò PAOLETTI Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 3. 39536/15 Immobiliare Bergamella Prima di Carlo Mariani & C. S.a.s. v. Italy 31/07/2015 IMMOBILIARE BERGAMELLA PRIMA DI CARLO MARIANI & C. S.A.S. 1964 Milan Italian Rocco MANGIA Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 4. 4458/17 Zeppilli v. Italy 03/01/2017 Annunzio ZEPPILLI 1940 Rome Italian Catia ZEPPILLI 1964 Rome Italian Clara ZEPPILLI 1948 Rome Italian Nicolò PAOLETTI Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 5. 47693/18 Garrafa and Others v. Italy 28/09/2018 Michele GARRAFA 1973 Cosenza Italian Ghita GARRAFA 1976 Cosenza Italian Maria Pia GARRAFA 1942 Brescia Italian Vincenza GARRAFA 1945 Roges di Rente(CS) Italian Virginia GARRAFA 1970 Rome Italian Basiliola IANNOTTA 1944 Cosenza Italian Fabio GULLOTTA Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 6. 37680/19 Bardazzi and Bigagli v. Italy 27/06/2019 Marcella BARDAZZI 1955 Prato Italian   Sauro Egisto BIGAGLI 1955 Prato Italian Franco Bruno CAMPAGNI Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 7. 12578/20 Gengari and Società Imprese Costruzioni Edili S.r.l. v. Italy 27/02/2020 Antonio GENGARI 1934 Foggia Italian SOCIETÀ IMPRESE COSTRUZIONI EDILI S.R.L. 1900 Foggia Italian Costantino VENTURA Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 8. 29620/20 Viscardi and Others v. Italy 13/07/2020 Pietro VISCARDI 1942 Monza Italian   Antonio VISCARDI 1972 Milan Italian   Tommaso VISCARDI 1974 Milan Italian Gaetano ALFARANO Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 9. 29716/20 Brazzale v. Italy 06/07/2020 Maurizio BRAZZALE 1963 Thiene (VI) Italian Daniela BRAZZALE 1973 Thiene (VI) Italian Italo BRAZZALE 1965 Thiene (VI) Italian Loretta BRAZZALE 1976 Marcon (VE) Italian Daniela ANDRIOLO Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 10. 2629/21 Cipriani v. Italy 29/12/2020 Antonio CIPRIANI 1969 Prato Italian Franco Bruno CAMPAGNI Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 11. 36440/21 Bartoletti v. Italy 29/06/2021 Laura BARTOLETTI 1957 Prato Italian Franco Bruno CAMPAGNI Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 12. 43868/22 Coppini and Ciappelli v. Italy 05/09/2022 Tiziano COPPINI 1954 Prato Italian   Sandra CIAPPELLI 1954 Prato Italian Franco Bruno CAMPAGNI Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1